That alone, the move by big media to fact-check the president’s State of the Union address, is almost as astonishing a reversal as was president Obama’s and the Democratic Congressional leadership’s since last Tuesday’s loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts to a Republican, taking away their 60 seat majority.

Whew, just when you think you’ve heard ‘re-set’ far too much…..Time to take a deep breath and consider what’s happening in American politics.

For one thing, within 24 hours (less, actually) of Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, the constant topic of the airwaves went from health care legislation to jobs and the economy. If our government is that fickle, how trustworthy are they with the nation’s business? (Rhetorical question. They haven’t been trustworthy in a long time.)

But look at this….Big (relatively speaking) media were fact-checking Obama during and after the address. Let’s take a look…

“The president has assailed the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing, and tonight said, “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.”

“Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site from the St. Petersburg Times, did some research when Obama first made the claim in his weekly radio address last weekend and found that it was barely true. Obama’s statements on whether foreign companies can spend money in U.S. political campaigns “overstated the ruling’s immediate impact.”

“Current federal law prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making, “directly or indirectly,” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a federal, state, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was seen shaking his head tonight as Obama made the pointed attack.”

Taking that further, Alito was seen mouthing the words “not true” . It’s not Congressman Joe Wilson’s ‘You lie!’, but the camera caught that silent moment of rejection of Obama’s claims by Justice Alito.

They were also rejected by Kevin McCullough, and Frank Luntz’s focus group reacting electonically to the whole speech. The common thread of reaction in that group (not yet available as a link) mirrored my thoughts……this sounds just like his early campaign speeches. And before I heard or read a single syllable of reaction by any media, I thought the pitch, tenor and rhetoric of this address was a reversion to the early and eager candidate Obama.

So maybe a critique by an American outside America helps focus the reaction…

“His manner and tone were always going to be subject to lively scrutiny: had his nerve been broken? Would the “cool” Obama survive the catastrophic defeat in Massachusetts and the collapse of his approval ratings? Well, he was cool enough. Jaunty, even – which may prove to have been a misjudgement. He clearly wanted to look undaunted but he came across as almost flippant. A more sombre delivery might have seemed more in tune with the anger and frustration of voters who still see themselves as beset by crisis. I rather expect that many of them could have done without the high school valedictory peroration on the greatness of American ideals and how “our values are American values” rather than Democrat or Republican values, and that political opponents who just wanted to “say ‘no’ to everything” were underming those values, etc, etc.

“Railing against the evils of partisan politics is the last refuge of the failing leader. It’s a bit desperate to be falling back on that tactic after only a year in office – especially when that year was spent with a firm lock on your congressional majority. If Obama is reduced to blaming Washington infighting for his inability to impress the nation after a year in which his party dominated government, what will the next three years be like?”